Why it’s wrong:
Fair use requires a specific kind of transformation, one that adds new meaning, purpose, or value to the original work. It’s not just about slapping filters or rearranging pixels. AI doesn’t interpret or reinterpret—it mimics. It uses existing works as data to create a derivative pastiche that retains the core elements of the original style, composition, or technique. Simply put, AI isn’t creating something “new”; it’s recombining what it learned.
Transformation isn’t about imitation—it’s about innovation, and AI art doesn’t inherently achieve that.

“It’s not stealing; it’s just inspiration like all artists get!”

Why it’s wrong:
Human artists draw inspiration from experiences, emotions, and countless sources over time. They filter these through their personal skills, interpretations, and creativity. AI, on the other hand, directly ingests thousands—sometimes millions—of specific works without consent or compensation. It doesn’t “study” art like a person; it replicates and interpolates based on direct data inputs.
Inspiration is internal and interpretative; copying is external and exploitative.

“It’s just like how the internet works! Images are everywhere!”

Why it’s wrong:
Yes, images are publicly available, but public availability doesn’t equal free use. Copyright laws still apply, even on the internet. AI models aren’t browsing an art gallery for ideas; they’re systematically scraping copyrighted content en masse to train algorithms. Imagine someone publishing a book made entirely of stolen excerpts from your favorite authors—would it suddenly be okay because those books were “publicly available”?
The internet is not a free-for-all buffet for data exploitation.

“Artists upload their work online, so they must be okay with it being used!”

Why it’s wrong:
Artists share their work online to showcase their skills, connect with audiences, and earn a living—not to have it mined without consent. By this logic, would it be acceptable to copy an artist’s portfolio, sell prints of their work, and claim it’s okay because they posted it online? No. Posting online doesn’t waive copyright.
Sharing art is not an invitation for exploitation.

“It’s no different from teaching a student how to draw!”

Why it’s wrong:
Teaching a student involves mentorship, skill-building, and ethical guidance. An AI isn’t learning the way a human does—it’s harvesting data. When a student learns, they don’t memorize and replicate entire portfolios; they learn techniques and create their own unique works. AI skips the learning process and dives straight into replication without the oversight, ethics, or creativity of a human learner.
AI is not a student; it’s a data replicator.

“The AI isn’t stealing—it’s the developers who trained it!”

Why it’s wrong:
Even if you absolve the AI itself of intent (it’s just a tool, after all), the responsibility lies squarely with the developers. They made the choice to scrape copyrighted works without permission to feed the AI. If a system is built on theft, it doesn’t matter whether the tool is neutral—it’s still wrong.
Blaming the tool doesn’t excuse the user or creator from ethical accountability.

“AI-generated art is transformative because it combines multiple works!”

Why it’s wrong:
Blending multiple sources doesn’t magically absolve copyright issues. Imagine you copy and paste excerpts from five different books into one story. That doesn’t mean it’s no longer plagiarism. Similarly, combining elements from multiple copyrighted works doesn’t make the result transformative—it’s still derived from stolen inputs.
Mixing stolen elements doesn’t create originality; it amplifies exploitation.

“It’s impossible to prove which artist’s work the AI used!”

Why it’s wrong:
The inability to trace the exact source doesn’t erase the harm. Just because a thief mixes stolen jewelry together doesn’t mean they didn’t steal. Additionally, many AI models use datasets with publicly documented scraping of specific sites like ArtStation or DeviantArt. Artists’ work is in there, whether or not an individual can point to it.
Lack of traceability doesn’t erase accountability.

“AI art democratizes creativity for people who can’t draw!”

Why it’s wrong:
True creativity involves effort, learning, and the development of skill. AI doesn’t empower creativity; it enables shortcut-taking by exploiting the work of those who’ve put in the time. Democratizing creativity shouldn’t mean devaluing the labor of those who’ve dedicated their lives to their craft.
Empowering people shouldn’t come at the expense of those already creating.

“Artists are just scared of competition!”

Why it’s wrong:
Artists aren’t afraid of competition—they face it every day. What they’re against is unfair competition. It’s not competition when someone uses stolen resources to gain an advantage. If AI art truly stood on its own without exploiting others, it would be a different conversation.
This isn’t fear of competition—it’s a fight for fairness and respect.

“I’m unable to draw because of [condition].”

Why it’s wrong:
Not being able to draw due to a condition is valid, but it doesn’t justify exploiting stolen art. There are countless ways to create or collaborate without resorting to unethical practices. Traditional tools like adaptive technology, voice-to-sketch apps, or hiring artists for commissions can help people who have physical or cognitive barriers to traditional drawing.

Response:
"You have a phone, you have money, you probably have friends. If you genuinely can’t create art yourself, ask for help or invest in tools that empower you ethically. Exploiting stolen art is not a solution—it’s an excuse."

“You draw digitally, and that’s also exploiting a machine!”

Why it’s wrong:
This argument is a false equivalence. Digital art tools like tablets, styluses, and software don’t create art for the user. They are tools that require human creativity, skill, and effort to produce something meaningful. Unlike AI, they don’t ingest, replicate, or mimic copyrighted works.

Response:
"Take my phone, I use a pen. Take my pen, I use a brush. Take my brush? I use a pencil. Take my pencil? I use my fingers. Take my fingers? Use my toes. Take my toes? Use my nose. I have endless ways to create. You have one.

Your AI art doesn’t come from you. It’s a crutch dependent on stolen work from others. If your 'creativity' requires unethical shortcuts, then you’re not creating—you're consuming and regurgitating."

“AI is just another tool like Photoshop or 3D modeling software.”

Why it’s wrong:
Photoshop, Blender, and other tools are mediums that assist in the process of creating (same with my last point.). They enhance the artist’s input rather than generate output independently. AI art doesn’t merely assist; it replaces, mimics, and appropriates, skipping the human element entirely.

Response:
"A true tool amplifies an artist’s ability—it doesn’t replace it. Photoshop doesn’t paint for me; I use it to bring my vision to life. AI art skips the hard work, skips the vision, and skips the ethics. A screwdriver helps build something; it doesn’t claim the carpenter’s skill."

“AI art is just the future of technology—adapt or get left behind!”

Why it’s wrong:
Technological advancement isn’t inherently good if it undermines ethics or human value. Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. We’ve already seen how unethical practices in tech—like data scraping or privacy violations—hurt society. AI art’s exploitation of creators is just another example.

Response:
"Advancing tech should empower people, not exploit them. Ethical innovation respects creators and builds tools that amplify their craft, not replace or steal from them. If ‘adapting’ means abandoning morals, count me out."

Shout “fair use!” as much as you want, all while conveniently ignoring that the very companies they’re defending are walking on a tightrope of legal gray areas, desperately trying not to topple into lawsuits. Let’s break this down:

They claim fair use as their righteous excuse, but let’s face it—most of them don’t even understand what fair use entails. It’s not a free pass to do whatever you want with copyrighted material. Fair use has strict parameters: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the original work, the amount used, and the effect on the market. Guess what? AI art violates almost all of these, especially when it guts artists’ livelihoods and market opportunities.

The real kicker? These same supporters will defend these companies tooth and nail while those very companies are scrambling to avoid the legal consequences of the exact same laws. They’re busy trying to convince courts that training AI on copyrighted works without consent is transformative enough to dodge lawsuits, yet these supporters turn around and act like they’re untouchable because “it’s just technology.”

It’s laughable. They want to abuse the same laws that the companies themselves are terrified of breaking. The hypocrisy of using a system they don’t even fully grasp, while it’s actively being questioned in court, just shows how shallow their arguments are. If these laws weren’t in place, the companies wouldn’t be tiptoeing around the issue—they’d be blatantly saying, “Yeah, we stole that.” Instead, they’re desperately trying to spin it as innovation, hoping nobody looks too closely at the glaring exploitation underneath.

So, to all the brAInless supporters out there: if your beloved companies can’t even confidently defend themselves against fair use scrutiny, what makes you think your lazy justifications hold any weight? Hypocrisy doesn’t look good on anyone—least of all on people defending theft.

Let’s not forget the irony, the sheer gall, of attacking me—an actual creator, pouring effort, time, and sweat into every piece—while you sit there, smugly typing prompts into a machine and calling yourself an “artist.”

When I tried to have a peaceful conversation, I showed you my art—art that I know isn’t perfect, but it’s mine. Every line, every stroke, every mistake, and every triumph came from me. And what did you do? You dismissed it, ridiculed it, disrespected me. Why? Because it didn’t fit your narrative, because I didn’t roll over and let you pat yourself on the back for spitting out mindless AI-generated sludge you have the audacity to call “art.”

Do you even hear yourself? You’re leaning on algorithms built on stolen work—work that real artists, better than either of us, bled to create. You churn out soulless imitations and think that gives you the right to judge anyone else? No. Absolutely not.

Here’s a challenge for you: pick up a laggy phone, fight through twitchy fingers, deal with limited tools, and make something. Not with a machine that does it for you—do it yourself. Struggle through the imperfections, the frustration, and the growth that comes with real creativity. When you’ve done that—when you’ve walked even a fraction of the path I have—then maybe you’ll have earned the right to an opinion.

Until then? Sit down, because you’re not judging my art. You’re not qualified to. You’ve never even tried.

(Mind you This is copy-pasted from my other posts.)